Saerules Wrote:Not necessarily.... the psychological/bodily damage to the individual that is suffering might turn the next best thing for humanity into a terrorist. The people involved in the suffering is an important notation. If we extend the definition of 'people' to include anything with personality (iow: anything that is a person)... those 10,000 people could be as inconsequential as say, dogs. It might not be a fun choice to make, but one shouldn't just judge the wood on the fact that it is wood, and then choose between quantities... quality should also be entered into the equation.
Some people talk about 'the big picture' with numbers alone. But one great person can do more to change a country than a much larger quantity of the less adept/useful. The question in such a case... would that change be for the better, as seen by the one making the decision?
I'm not entirely sure where the disagreement is. Are you saying that it is possible for a claim like "X is better than Y" to be unqualified? Or is this merely a pedantic response to my claim that 10,000 people suffering is worse for society than 1 person suffering? If it's the latter point, then I think you're misunderstanding my case.
